Catherine, Princess of Wales and Prince William
Philanthropy is hardly a new calling for British royalty. King George II, in the first recorded act of royal patronage, helped establish an antiquarian society focused on art and architectural conservation in the 18th century. The modern royal agenda, though, suggests priorities have shifted. Prince William and Catherine, Princess of Wales, are less concerned with cultural preservation and more attuned to social issues, tackling homelessness and rural mental health through their Royal Foundation and spotlighting innovative solutions to climate change through the Earthshot Prize, an environmental award founded by William in 2020.
'It's more about impact philanthropy, collaboration, convening, and helping people,' the Prince told the BBC in November.
Crucial to the Waleses' approach is aligning social imperatives with sound business strategies and building corporate alliances to expand their reach. To support her 'Shaping Us' campaign, which champions well-being initiatives for children five and younger, Catherine convened a business task force that included the Lego Group and, to assess impact, consulting firm Deloitte. Last spring, the group published a report that concluded investing in early childhood programs could yield an additional £45.5 billion ($60 billion) for the U.K. economy annually. The finding spurred task force members to commit millions towards these initiatives.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Hegseth says Nato allies ‘very close' to raising defence spending target to 5%
The US defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, said Nato allies were 'very close, almost near consensus' to an agreement to significantly raise targets for defence spending to 5% of GDP in the next decade. The Trump administration official indicated he expected the increased target to be agreed at a summit in The Hague later this month – and confirmed that the headline figure was to be split into two parts. 'This alliance, in a matter of weeks, will be committing to 5%: 3.5% in hard military and 1.5% in infrastructure and defence-related activities. That combination constitutes a real commitment,' he said. Hegseth was speaking at a press conference at Nato headquarters in Brussels after the morning session of an all-day meeting of defence ministers from the 32-country transatlantic military alliance. 'I'm very encouraged by what we heard in there,' Hegseth told reporters. 'Countries in there are well exceeding 2% and we think very close, almost near consensus, on a 5% commitment to Nato.' Nato's current target level for military spending, agreed at a summit in Cardiff in 2014, is 2% of GDP, but Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that European allies and Canada do not spend enough compared with the US. In an attempt to avoid Trump wrecking the first Nato summit of his second term, the alliance's new secretary general, Mark Rutte, proposed a 3.5% plus 1.5% target, though there is some ambiguity about the target date. Initial reports suggested that Rutte wanted allies to hit the target from 2032, though earlier this week British sources suggested the date could be 2035. Sweden's defence minister said he would like to see the target hit by 2030. Only Poland currently exceeds the 3.5% target for hard military spending at 4.32%, according to Nato figures, while the US defence budget, the largest in the alliance, amounts to 3.4% of GDP, at $967bn (£711bn). The UK spends 2.33% of GDP on its military, but has pledged to increase that to 2.5% by 2027 and to 3% some time in the next parliament. Earlier this week the prime minister, Keir Starmer, declined to set a firm date for the UK achieving 3% as he unveiled a strategic defence review. Related: Why is defence such a hard sell? The same reason Starmer is struggling in the polls | Martin Kettle Rutte will visit London on Monday to meet Starmer before the summit. Downing Street said the prime minister and the secretary general would 'talk about how we ensure all allies step up their defence spending now in order to respond to the threats that we face now'. Germany's defence minister, Boris Pistorius, said Berlin would need up to 60,000 additional troops to meet new Nato targets for weapons and personnel. 'We are stepping up to our responsibility as Europe's largest economy,' the minister said on Thursday. Germany, which currently spends 2.12% of GDP on defence, had been singled out by Trump as a laggard in spending, though until Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Berlin had been reluctant to be a leader in European military spending, partly due to the memories of the militarism of the second world war.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Government struggles to cut foreign aid spent on asylum hotels
The government is struggling to cut the amount of foreign aid it spends on hotel bills for asylum seekers in the UK, the BBC has learnt. New figures released quietly by ministers in recent days show the Home Office plans to spend £2.2bn of overseas development assistance (ODA) this financial year - that is only marginally less than the £2.3bn it spent in 2024/25. The money is largely used to cover the accommodation costs of thousands of asylum seekers who have recently arrived in the UK. The Home Office said it was committed to ending asylum hotels and was speeding up asylum decisions to save taxpayers' money. The figures were published on the Home Office website with no accompanying notification to media. Foreign aid is supposed to be spent alleviating poverty by providing humanitarian and development assistance overseas. But under international rules, governments can spend some of their foreign aid budgets at home to support asylum seekers during the first year after their arrival. According to the most recent Home Office figures, there are about 32,000 asylum seekers in hotels in the UK. Labour promised in its manifesto to "end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds". Contracts signed by the Conservative government in 2019 were expected to see £4.5bn of public cash paid to three companies to accommodate asylum seekers over a 10-year period. But a report by spending watchdog the National Audit Office (NAO) in May said that number was expected to be £15.3bn. Asylum accommodation costs set to triple, says watchdog Asylum hotel companies vow to hand back some profits On June 3, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper told the Home Affairs Committee she was "concerned about the level of money" being spent on asylum seekers' accommodation and added: "We need to end asylum hotels altogether." The Home Office said it was trying to bear down on the numbers by reducing the time asylum seekers can appeal against decisions. It is also planning to introduce tighter financial eligibility checks to ensure only those without means are housed. But Whitehall officials and international charities have said the Home Office has no incentive to reduce ODA spending because the money does not come out of its budgets. The scale of government aid spending on asylum hotels has meant huge cuts in UK support for humanitarian and development priorities across the world. Those cuts have been exacerbated by the government's reductions to the overall ODA budget. In February, Sir Keir Starmer said he would cut aid spending from 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3% by 2027 - a fall in absolute terms of about £14bn to some £9bn. Such was the scale of aid spending on asylum hotels in recent years that the previous Conservative government gave the Foreign Office an extra £2bn to shore up its humanitarian commitments overseas. But Labour has refused to match that commitment. Gideon Rabinowitz, director of policy at the Bond network of development organisations, said: "Cutting the UK aid budget while using it to prop up Home Office costs is a reckless repeat of decisions taken by the previous Conservative government. "Diverting £2.2bn of UK aid to cover asylum accommodation in the UK is unsustainable, poor value for money, and comes at the expense of vital development and humanitarian programmes tackling the root causes of poverty, conflict and displacement. "It is essential that we support refugees and asylum seekers in the UK, but the government should not be robbing Peter to pay Paul." Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Committee, said the government was introducing "savage cuts" to its ODA spending, risking the UK's development priorities and international reputation, while "Home Office raids on the aid budget" had barely reduced. "Aid is meant to help the poorest and most vulnerable across the world: to alleviate poverty, improve life chances and reduce the risk of conflict," she said. "Allowing the Home Office to spend it in the UK makes this task even harder." "The government must get a grip on spending aid in the UK," she said. "The Spending Review needs to finally draw a line under this perverse use of taxpayer money designed to keep everyone safe and prosperous in their own homes, not funding inappropriate, expensive accommodation here." Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: "Labour promised in their manifesto to end the use of asylum hotels for illegal immigrants. But the truth is there are now thousands more illegal migrants being housed in hotels under Labour. "Now these documents reveal that Labour are using foreign aid to pay for asylum hotel accommodation – yet another promise broken." A Home Office spokesperson said: "We inherited an asylum system under exceptional pressure, and continue to take action, restoring order, and reduce costs. This will ultimately reduce the amount of Official Development Assistance spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. "We are immediately speeding up decisions and increasing returns so that we can end the use of hotels and save the taxpayer £4bn by 2026." Is the government meeting its pledges on illegal immigration and asylum?
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Will Musk's explosive row with Trump help or harm his businesses?
When Elon Musk recently announced that he was stepping back from politics, investors hoped that would mean he would step up his involvement in the many tech firms he runs. His explosive row with President Donald Trump - and the very public airing of his dirty White House laundry - suggests Musk's changing priorities might not quite be the salve they had been hoping for. Instead of Musk retreating somewhat from the public eye and focusing on boosting the fortunes of Tesla and his other enterprises, he now finds himself being threatened with a boycott from one of his main customers - Trump's federal government. Tesla shares were sent into freefall on Thursday - falling 14% - as he sounded off about President Donald Trump on social media. They rebounded a little on Friday following some indications tempers were cooling. Even so, for the investors and analysts who, for months, had made clear they wanted Musk off his phone and back at work, the situation is far from ideal. Some though argue the problems for Musk's businesses run much deeper than this spat - and the controversial role in the Trump administration it has brought a spectacular end to. For veteran tech journalist Kara Swisher, that is especially so for Tesla. "Tesla's finished," she told the BBC on the sidelines of the San Francisco Media Summit early this week. "It was a great car company. They could compete in the autonomous taxi space but they're way behind." Tesla has long attempted to play catch-up against rival Waymo, owned by Google-parent Alphabet, whose driverless taxis have traversed the streets of San Francisco for years - and now operate in several more cities. This month, Musk is supposed to be overseeing Tesla's launch of a batch of autonomous robo-taxis in Austin, Texas. He posted to X last week that the electric vehicle maker had been testing the Model Y with no drivers on board. "I believe 90% of the future value of Tesla is going to be autonomous and robotics," Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives told the BBC this week, adding that the Austin launch would be "a watershed moment". "The first task at hand is ensuring the autonomous vision gets off to a phenomenal start," Ives added. Who is Elon Musk? How the Trump-Musk feud erupted But with Musk's attention divided, the project's odds of success would appear to have lengthened. And there's something else to factor in too: Musk's own motivation. The talk in Silicon Valley lately centres less on whether Musk can turn things around and more on whether he even cares. "He's a really powerful person when he's focused on something," said Ross Gerber, President and CEO of Gerber Kawasaki Wealth and Investment Management. "Before, it was about proving to the world that he would make EVs - the tech that nobody else could do. It was about proving he could make rockets. He had a lot to prove." A longtime Tesla investor, Gerber has soured on the stock, and has been pairing back his holdings since Musk's foray into right-wing politics. He called Thursday an "extremely painful day." "It's the dumbest thing you could possibly do to think that you have more power than the president of the United States," Gerber said, referring to Musk's social media tirade against Trump. The BBC reached out to X, Tesla, and SpaceX seeking comment from Mr Musk but did not receive a response. A particular problem for Musk is that, before he seemingly created an enemy in Donald Trump, he already had one in the grassroots social media campaign against his car-maker. Protests, dubbed #TeslaTakedown, have played out across the country every weekend since Trump took office. In April, Tesla reported a 20% drop in car sales for the first three months of the year. Profits plunged more than 70%, and the share price went down with it. "He should not be deciding the fate of our democracy by disassembling our government piece by piece. It's not right," protestor Linda Koistinen told me at a demonstration outside a Berkeley, California Tesla dealership in February. Koistinen said she wanted to make a "visible stand" against Musk personally. "Ultimately it's not about the tech or the Tesla corporation," said Joan Donovan, a prominent disinformation researcher who co-organized the #TeslaTakedown protests on social media. "It's about the way in which the stock of Tesla has been able to be weaponized against the people and it has put Musk in such a position to have an incredible amount of power with no transparency," Donovan added. Another aspect of Musk's empire that has raised the ire of his detractors is X, the social media platform once known as Twitter. "He bought Twitter so that he had clout and would be able to - at the drop of a hat - reach hundreds of millions of people," Donovan said. There is another possibility here though. Could Musk's high-profile falling out with Trump help rehabilitate him in the eyes of people who turned against him because of his previous closeness to the president? Patrick Moorhead, chief analyst at Moor Insights & Strategy, thinks it could. "We're a very forgiving country," Moorhead says in a telephone interview. "These things take time," he acknowledges, but "it's not unprecedented". Swisher likened Musk's personal brand to that of Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates more than two decades ago. She said Gates was once regarded as "the Darth Vader of Silicon Valley" because of his "arrogant and rude" personality. Today, despite his flaws, Gates has largely rehabilitated his image. "He learned. He grew up. People can change," Swisher told me, even though Musk is "clearly troubled." The problem for Musk is the future for him and his companies is not just about what he does - but what Trump decides too. And while Trump needed Musk in the past, not least to help fund his presidential race, it's not so clear he does now. Noah Smith, writer of the Noahpinion Substack, said Trump's highly lucrative foray into cryptocurrencies - as unseemly as it has been - may have freed him from depending on Musk to carry out his will. "My guess is that this was so he could get out from under Elon," Smith said. In Trump's most menacing comment of the day, he suggested cutting Musk's government contracts, which have an estimated value of $38 billion. A significant chunk of that goes to Musk's rocket company SpaceX - seemingly threatening its future. However, despite the bluster, Trump's warning may be a little more hollow than it seems. That's because SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft ferries people and cargo to the International Space Station where three NASA astronauts are currently posted. It demonstrates that SpaceX has so entrenched itself in the US space and national security apparatus, that Trump's threat could be difficult to carry out. You could make a similar argument about Musk's internet satellite company, Starlink. Finding an alternative could be easier said than done. But, if there are limits on what Trump can do, the same is also true of Musk. In the middle of his row with Trump, he threatened to decommission the Dragon - but it wasn't long before he was rowing back. Responding to an X user's suggestion he that he "cool down" he wrote, "Good advice. Ok, we won't decommission Dragon." It's clear Musk and Trump's friendship is over. It's less certain their reliance on each other is. Whatever the future for Musk's businesses is then, it seems Trump - and his administration's actions - will continue to have a big say in them. Trump and Musk trade insults as row erupts in public view Tesla shares tumble as Trump-Musk feud erupts Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the world's top tech stories and trends. Outside the UK? Sign up here. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
